If approved, this measure would require voter approval for any future construction projects on the San Francisco waterfront that exceed existing height limits found in the zoning and construction code of the city. The measure would immediately delay the construction of high-rise hotels and condo towers along the bay, in addition to three construction projects planned for the waterfront, until voters had a chance to approve each one separately.[1]

Text of measure

Title and summary

The following ballot title and summary were issued by the city attorney for Proposition B:[2]

“

Voter Approval for Waterfront Development Height Increases

The City and County of San Francisco, through its Port Commission, owns and controls about 7 1/2 miles of the San Francisco waterfront along the San Francisco Bay. That property includes piers, land near the piers, and land on the wast side of The Embarcadero roadway. The City holds most of its waterfront in public trust for the benefit of all the State's people, and this public trust restricts the allowable uses of that property. In 1990 the City's voters adopted Proposition H, which required the City to prepare a comprehensive waterfront land use plan with maximum feasible public input. Consistent with Proposition H and the public trust requirements, the Port Commission adopted a comprehensive land use plan that governs acceptable waterfront uses. The City's zoning laws regulate development of buildings and other structures on that property, including the maximum allowed height. Generally, changes in the height limit require approval of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

This measure would prevent any City agency or officer from permitting development on the waterfront to exceed the height limit in effect as of January 1, 2014, unless the City's voters approve the height limit increase. The measure defines "waterfront" as public trust property that the State transferred to the City to be placed under the control of the San Francisco Port Commission, as well as any other property that the Port owns or controls as of January 1, 2014 or later acquires. This measure also would require that the ballot question on the measure to increase height limits on any part of the waterfront specify both the existing and proposed height limits.[3]

”

Full text

The full text of the ordinance that would be enacted by approval of Proposition B is available here.

Ballot Simplification Digest

The Ballot Simplification Committee produced the following summary and digest of Proposition B:[4]

“

The Way It Is Now:

The City and County of San Francisco, through its Port Commission, administers about 7-1/2
miles of the waterfront and former waterfront along the San Francisco Bay, including most of
the property between Fisherman’s Wharf and India Basin. The Port’s property includes piers,
land near the piers, and areas that were filled and are no longer adjacent to the Bay. The City
acquired most of this property from the State of California and holds it in trust for the benefit of
the people of California. State law restricts the allowable uses of this property.

In 1990 the City’s voters adopted Proposition H, which required the City to prepare a
Waterfront Land Use Plan with public input. The Port Commission adopted a comprehensive
land use plan that governs acceptable waterfront uses consistent with Proposition H and public
trust requirements.

The City’s zoning laws regulate development on that property, including the maximum allowed
height. The existing height limits generally range from 40 feet to 84 feet. Changes in existing
height limits usually require neighborhood notification, public hearings, and approval by the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. These changes do not require the voters to
approve a ballot measure.

The Proposal:

Proposition B would prevent the City from allowing any development on Port property that
exceeds the height limits in effect as of January 1, 2014, unless the City’s voters have first
approved an increase in the height limit for that development. The measure applies to property
currently under the control of the Port Commission, as well as any property that the Port may
later acquire. Any ballot question to increase height limits on Port property must specify both
existing and proposed height limits.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to prevent the City from allowing any
development on Port property to exceed the height limits in effect as of January 1, 2014,
unless the City’s voters have approved a height limit increase.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote “no,” you do not want to make this change.[3]

”

Projects at risk

Currently there are plans for the construction of three projects in the waterfront area that would be put on hold by the enactment of the ordinance proposed by this initiative. The measure would require voter approval of the following:

Golden State Warriors

Rendering of Golden State Warriors' arena project by Steelblue

The Golden State Warriors', the NBA team located in San Francisco, had proposed and planned the construction of an 18,000-seat arena complex. This project would have required voter approval in a city-wide referendum to go forward under the proposed initiative. The arena would have been be 125 feet tall and would have been located on Piers 30-32, which area is currently zoned for buildings only 40 or fewer feet in height. According to some reports, the Warriors' team may have already been willing to go to the voters for approval of their new arena, independent of the proposed initiative potentially forcing a referendum. The Warriors have announced that Snøhetta and AECOM were selected to design the new arena. The team, however, opted to cancel their plan for Piers 30-32 and selected a location in the city's Mission Bay neighborhood for their proposed arena instead.[1][5][6]

More images of the renderings for the proposed arena besides the one shown on the right are available here.

SF Giants project

The San Francisco Giants' plan for an urban neighborhood on what is currently their main parking lot. The development would include 300-foot tall towers on areas that are zoned for open space.[1]

Pier 70 Development

There have been plans revolving for a while around developing the Pier 70 area - 69-acres located in the City’s Central Waterfront, generally between Mariposa and 22nd Street, east of Illinois Street. The estimates for the development work are between $58 and $100 million and would require voter approval under the initiative.[7]

Hotels and condos

Another project potentially at risk is a plan for Piers 30-32 that would include multiple condos and a 227-room hotel.[8]

Jon Golinger, campaign director for the measure, said, "What this initiative says is, respect the plan that's already in place and if you want to change it, don't try to do it behind closed doors. Do it in the light of day, and let the people have a say."[1]

The Sierra Club, the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and the Affordable Housing Alliance collaborated to produce the official arguments in favor of Proposition B.[9]

Arguments in favor

The following was submitted as the official argument in favor of Proposition B:[9]

Campaign finance

As of February 4, 2014, the latest campaign filings show a couple that lives in Golden Gateway Apartments is the sole contributor so far to the petition campaign. Barbara and Richard Stewart provided $75,000 to support this initiative and were also large backers of the campaign opposed to the 8 Washington Street development.[1]

The San Francisco Democratic Party narrowly voted 13 against 12 to oppose Proposition B.[11]

The following individuals signed the official arguments against Proposition B:[9]

Tim Colen, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

Mike Theriault, San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council

Corinne Woods, Mission Creek resident

Arguments against

Opponents of Proposition B say it would unnecessarily involve voters in the complicated process of deciding what is best for the future of the waterfront of San Francisco, delaying or stopping projects important in making San Francisco thrive economically.[1]

They also argued in court that to control the development of the waterfront did not belong to the jurisdiction of the city and, therefore, was outside the authority of an initiative approved by city voters.[8]

C.W. Nevius wrote an opinion piece against Proposition B that was published by the San Francisco Chronicle. In it he wrote:[12]

“

First, if this is such a good idea, why stop there? Shouldn't other neighborhoods be able to vote on height limitations? Or homeless shelters. Or Muni routes? Or whether the mayor should have soup or salad for lunch?

Elections are expensive and time consuming. They're also a formula for gridlock. The Giants have prepared a terrific plan for a retail center on their parking lot A. Now they might have to prepare an election strategy.
[3]

Official arguments

Path to the ballot

On February 3, 2014, many of the same activists who were active in the effort to shut down the 8 Washington Street waterfront development project in November of 2013 turned in 21,067 signatures. The San Francisco Department of Elections had until March 5, 2014, to certify that at least 9,702 of these signatures were valid, qualifying the initiative for the June ballot. There were more than enough valid signatures among those submitted to put Proposition B on the ballot.[1]

Lawsuits

On February 14, 2014, several of the large developers and their supporters, including the San Francisco Giants, backed the filing of a lawsuit attempting to keep the initiative off the ballot. The lawsuit claims that the measure would intrude on the jurisdiction of the state and the Port Commission over the shoreline and waterfront.[13] On March 19, 2014, San Francisco Superior CourtJudge Marla Miller ruled in favor of the defendants of Proposition B and ordered the election to go forward.[10]

Plaintiffs

The attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Robin Johansen, argued that a city initiative cannot regulate "state lands that are held in trust for all the people of the state, not just San Franciscans." She also argued that the state "has expressly prohibited those lands from being subject to local initiatives," pointing to a 1968 law that gave the Port Commission, rather than the City of San Francisco, authority over waterfront planning. Johansen also stated that even the city's charter gives waterfront planning authority to the commission.[13]

Defendants

Jon Golinger, director of the No Wall on the Waterfront campaign supporting the initiative, said, in response to plaintiffs' arguments, that the developer special interests themselves used a city initiative measure about shoreline height limits to try to approve the 8 Washington Street Development project, implying hypocrisy. Golinger also referred to the history of waterfront construction regulation to illustrate a precedent of city involvement and authority. He cited a voter initiative that prohibited hotels on city piers and put a temporary stop to construction on the waterfront in 1990. Golinger said, "They're trying to keep the voters of San Francisco from weighing in on the future of the waterfront that belongs to all of us." He continued, saying, "Zoning ordinances regulate the height of waterfront land. The Port Commission has abided by this."[13]

Ruling

San Francisco Superior CourtJudge Marla Miller ruled, on March 19, 2014, that the plaintiffs did not present enough evidence to keep the measure from the ballot and ordered the election to go forward. Judge Miller, however, did not rule on the merits of the legal complaints brought against the measure, saying that the measure should go through a "full, unhurried briefing" and detailed scrutiny in court. This leaves Proposition B open to post-election lawsuits if it is approved in June. In answer to the allegation of plaintiffs that the waterfront was outside city jurisdiction, Miller wrote that there was a precedent of many other initiatives and referenda being proposed to control uses of San Francisco waterfront lands and that Prop. B opponents "have not clearly established that the challenge is meritorious such that it justifies the 'dramatic step' of withholding the measure from voters."[10]

Appeal

Opponents of the initiative, still supported in part by the San Francisco Giants and other development interests, filed an appeal of Judge Miller's original ruling, rehashing their claiming that Proposition B violates the jurisdiction and authority of the state and the port commission. They also argued that the initiative must be blocked from the allot because it threatens to delay or halt projects that are essential to the economic well being of the city and the state. Certain development projects that have already been planned and are put at risk by Proposition B would result in an additional 3,690 housing units and almost eight and a half billion dollars in port revenue.[14]

Attorney Robin Johansen filed a case with appellate court, writing, "Allowing the election to go forward will halt or indefinitely delay projects that the Port Commission and the legislature have determined are essential to providing revenue to repair and maintain the city's seawall and historic waterfront structures that are at risk from earthquakes and sea level rise. These projects are too important to statewide interests to be subject to the vagaries of the local election process."[14]

Jim Stearns, who works in support of Proposition B as a political consultant, said, "The Giants support our right to vote on who goes to the All-Star Game but not on what gets built on our waterfront. With all due respect to the All-Stars, that's pretty messed up."[14]